Tuesday, April 03, 2007

And Twisty misses the point yet again.I haven’t read I Blame The Patriarchy since the blow job and trans hate-fest debacles, but Octogalore brought a certain thread to my attention that some of you may have missed. Now normally I advise avoiding IBTP on general “WTF is wrong with these people?” principles, but in this particular case the level of shark-jumping, mind-boggling bullshit is so high that I couldn’t resist mentioning it.So apparently Helen Mirren is a whore. Why, you ask? Because she was featured in an article in Architectural Digest in which she posed on her bed (you know, so that we could see her bedroom, since it is after all an architecture magazine) wearing a ballgown. That slut! Seriously, nothing says “shameless hussy” to me like a ballgown.Hang on a minute. A ballgown? I’ve worn one on multiple occasions, and let’s just say they’re not the sexiest garments ever made as a whole. When I think ballgown I tend to think “dowager duchess” rather than “Girls Gone Wild”.But women are the sex class after all, therefore every clothing choice we make must imply something about our sexuality, right? Right?Except no. What a ballgown signifies has nothing to do with sex…it’s about class. Specifically, it says that the wearer has enough disposable income to waste some on a completely impractical garment that one only has occasion to wear if one frequently attends upper crust functions.Mirren is most definitely in that demographic. She’s wealthy and has been for a while, she’s successful, and she’s a Brit. If one is a wealthy and prominent person who lives in the UK one is frequently invited to the kind of events where a ballgown is required.But since when does wearing a ballgown and sitting on one’s bed in one’s well decorated room imply submissive sexbot availability? The ACTUAL subtext is as follows – I am rich, I am a member of the establishment, and I’m not ashamed to admit it. You think that your plebian ass has a chance at getting into this bed, or even this house? Surely you jest.Now I personally have no particular issue with any of that. Mirren is a great actress and she’s earned her success. From a feminist point of view she’s actually one of the better actresses out there – have these idiots never seen Cracker? Or was that show unacceptable too since she joined the patriarchal police force rather than setting up a lesbian commune and producing organic hemp?As feminists we really need to cut other women a bit more slack. The urge to tear down successful women? To mock their choices, to make snide assertions about them, to imply judgement about their sex lives based on what they’re wearing? Not a good urge. Not feminist, not helpful to women overall.This isn’t feminism, it’s sniping. And it needs to stop.Also, how very Twisty to not even mention the class implications. Twisty and I are from the same social strata – I KNOW that she knows what a ballgown signifies. It’s a class marker, and one that someone with Twisty’s background cannot fail to notice.But then discussing class fucks with the program, right? If we were to talk about class we might have to admit that things aren’t simple, that poor women have often been marginalized and ignored in feminist theory, that the rich white women are still talking over everyone else. And then, by God, we might have to talk about race. Can’t have that in Twisty-land.So nope, Mirren posing in Architectural Digest is all about her being a sexbot and demonstrating willingness to fellate the patriarchy. (And note that this is Architectural Digest, not exactly knows for it’s hardcore porn. It’s not Penthouse, people) Class and race do not exist. Nothing exists apart from the fact that women are the Sex Class.Must be nice to live in a world that simple, even if it only exists in your own imagination.

Actually, I should point out a little something. She's not just wearing a ballgown. She's wearing a ball gown plus a mask, on the cover of an edition that specifically lists her location as New Orleans. This says to me, native Louisianaian that I am, 'Oh, she's dressed for Mardi Gras.' So, not only is she NOT a whore in a ball gown tricking for the Patriarchy, she's actually wearing a freaking costume that oh, about a billion other people also wear in my state for a designated day or two every damn year.

Granted, she's dressed to go to a Mardi Gras ball as opposed to a street party like the rest of us plebs, but she's clearly wearing a costume. And, as an actress, isn't that what she does? And isn't the cover of a magazine just another 'acting' job? So what the hell is it supposed to say about her as a person?

And she's completely dressed! For fuck's sake, what's wrong with these people?? (And frankly, for Mardi Gras, she's way overdressed.)

I think your right. But even as feminists we need to lay off of the persona cult. Positively and negatively. What is posted at IBTP is just one (imaginary)persons opinion piece. I dont take it more seriously than that. Also I find all the Twisty glorifieers funny. "No we will not worship Old-white-dude-deity anymore, but Twisty I fall on my knees before you. gab.gab. ..."

god, TF is boring. i won't go over there again; i always feel like i've been strapped into some sort of quasi-radical-feminist version of the "It's a Small World" ride. anyway i've laid into her enough times that at this point adding anything would be anticlimactic, and i do so hate that.

Zan - I didn't even pay attention to the fact that it was the NO edition...yep. No one ever dresses up for that, right? Jokerine - The Twisty sing-along chorus is kind of funny sometimes. In fact I used to wonder if she posted those herself.Belle - Is is just me or do you have the feeling that this is actually the word she wanted to use all along?Of course she backed off in the comments and babb;ed about how she meant that Mirren was made into a whore...because putting it in the passive voice makes everything OK again!Actually in her worldview it probably does make it more OK, sad to say.

The whole "my mom wears makeup and Manolos and even she's lost respect for Mirren" is pathetically unconvincing. So suddenly women who sport "femininity" ARE worthy of being listened to? Oh, it's only when we're calling another woman a whore, or underserving of respect? What about women who sport "femininity" who say she's NOT a whore -- well in that case, they're biased, because they're whores too, don't listen to them!

But Ren, don't you get it, it's all about the clothes! Although I thought long skirts were OK...Octo - "feminine" women are OK as long as they agree with us about everything and, you know, apologise for looking conventionally feminine a few times an hour. Because once again, it's all about how we look. Not what we think, not how we act - how we look.Men on the other hand...it's all about what they actually say and do. Who cares what they look like, silly, they're men!

OK, so, I wear make-up and Manolos (which you will have to pry from my cold dead fingers if you want me to give them up, BTW). And I like Mirren. But then I'm not Twisty's mother so I guess my opinion doesn't count.The whole idea of invoking your parents as the barometer of what's OK is a little odd for a woman who's, what, in her forties?

It's very easy to toe the radfem line if you don't have anything at stake. Like being attractive to men or to women who like feminine women. Or like having to make a buck or two via capitalism because you don't have a "sit on your ass and have fancy lunches while penning witty diatribes against women who don't have trust funds" trust fund.

Octo - I said the same thing about the blowjob debacle. It's really easy to say "feminists should not do X" if X is something so far removed from your own experience it's basically irrelevant to you. And once again...nothing more feminist than having Daddy pay your way.

Belle, you left out that her patriarchal, Republican 'captain of industry' pops supports abortion for the radical reason that single mothers produce criminal offspring, remember! That proves her creds!

Belle - I'm pretty sure that the reason she responded to you the way she did was class, specifically that she assumes yours is "working". Which is one of the reasons I feel free to critique - hey, my pops is a "captain of industry" too and I love him very much, but in what way exactly does that give me (or her) a right to be a gigantic jackass and sneer at anyone raised without a silver spoon over the fact that they may have some difficult choices to make?

Belle - I'm pretty sure that the reason she responded to you the way she did was class, specifically that she assumes yours is "working".

oh, cute!

well, insofar as/when i'm needing to work for someone else during my lifetime, technically i suppose that would make me working class, even if i've been significantly aided by familial doings in the "investor"/owner side of things. and i suppose you could call one of my gramps a captain of industry, although i don't know if the garment industry has "captains" per se. anyway: owners of capital, sure, at some level. leisurely, yes. hell, i'm sure that's one of the reasons i was attracted to her blog in the first place: oh look, she's witty, she's urbane, she likes good food, she's amusingly ironic...yeah, those things. familiar, those things.

but yeah, it's a sign of something or other that i didn't take that one that personally. if i HAD had a much harder time on the socioeconomic ladder (if i'd, for example, spent my life performing those cute waiter tricks she seems to think are her and her fathers' due, instead of spending more time on the other side of the table, often in the company of similarly entitled relatives, much as i love 'em, -wince-), boy o boy...

i mean, she's whining that someone's calling out her feminist creds (which technically i wasn't doing, actually, at least not for that reason; i was basically saying she's just utterly full of shit, all around, based on her online shenanigans and the sheer mean smug hypocrisy of it all) because--what was it now? that's right: she was born to the "wrong" class.

oh Mary. everyone should have such problems, right? and i, the supposed blue-collar Betty, was "snivelling." apparently--unlike her whore-baiting and practically DEMANDING that other women stop "making us all look bad" by pulling out the stiletto heels and the lippy--suggesting (from whatever perspective) that she might want to -examine- the rather large and gilded beam stickin' out her jaundiced eyeball at some point--well that's just not cricket, is it?

...and this, in short, is why i don't call myself a radical anything. because even assuming i did aspire to such a thing (and i'm not at all sure that i do), frankly: you put your money where your mouth is. Spouting self-serving crap on the Internets does -not- a radical anything make, except maybe a radical asshole.

and: while in general i'm less and less enamored of the hairshirt quality the "examine your privilege/baggage/whatever" stuff often takes on the American Left, i'm way WAY less impressed with someone who's all too happy to try to force someone -else- into the hairshirt while not even acknowledging she's rather snug and comfy herself, on the whole.

at this point i'm largely forgiving of pretty much anything except what looks to me like willful unconsciousness in the service of gratuitous hatefulness, even or especially all dressed up as it often is in virtuous sounding terms.

I'm assuming that she thought you were working class based on her reaction, but we should probably remember that we can't read her mind. Fairness and all.If I really had been raised poor, on the other hand, I'd probably want to strangle her by now. The sheer stench of unconcious privilege that comes off of that blog is astonishing.

As someone who was raised poor (granted, it was a particular Southern genteel poverty where we weren't really "poor" because we grew our own food and made our own clothing, just like our ancestors did oh so many years ago, so really we were just preserving tradition, you see.) I kinda wanna shake people who get snarky with the working class. That waitress who you're pissed at because she hasn't filled your oh, 3/4 full glass already? Well, she's probably working another job when she gets off to pay her way through college or to put her kids in day care or to help her parents pay the rent or to just put fucking food on the table so no one in her house goes to be hungry so why the fuck don't you give her a break already? Or, better yet, why don't you trade places with her for a week? Just one week. You take over her life, her finances, her problems and she'll take over your life, your finances and your problems. I'll bet you'd think differently when you were done.

Ahem. Sorry, I have no patience for spoiled rich kids who just won't grow the fuck up.

i try not to blow up at say customer service reps these days. i don't always succeed. i readily admit that this is primarily because i am 1) frustrated at not being able to get THROUGH to anyone 2) impatient 3) being an entitled asshole, all things considered.

About Me

I'm a progressive, left-wing Brit living in California. I used to be a high-tech sales guru, but got tired of that and am now thinking about going back to school to get a Masters in Journalism. My undergrad is in Psychology, but I have never used this in any constructive way. This is typical for me.
I grew up mostly in the Middle East, was educated at a very fancy Scottish boarding school, moved to London at 18, and have lived in the Bay Area for the past 8 years. I am now suffering from a serious case of itchy feet, and am feeling that 8 years is quite long enough to stay in one place. Again, this is typical. If anyone really wants to figure me out they should Google "third culture" - I fit the prototype pretty closely. If any other Third Culture kids happen to stumble across this blog, write to me. There aren't very many of us.